It's just very sloppy. Not that it doesn't work, but its code is redundant, there are unnecessary commands and unnecessarily repeated commands. I wasn't being completely serious, just thought it was funny for a script included with something as big and shiny as OSX.

Two, that OSx to Windows bug comparison is bullshit. It includes programs NOT installed by default in OSx OR created, support, or used by Apple other then Mac being the system it is running on (a php file for Squirrlemail CVE-2007-3944), it includes duplicates (CVE-2007-0229, and CVE-2007-0236 in Jan and March), and it includes none-OS programs (iChat. How many times are msn messenger bugs included in the comparison on the windows side? Not once). It also includes bugs in BETA software that does not come with OSx as default and is not a automatic update (Safari 3 beta, CVE-2007-3944, CVE-2007-3742)

Three, those quicktime bugs you mention, are all on windows. Not in OSx.

Hello Again,I'm using the tar command as stated in previous post to back up and compress a usb stick (200MB) photo folder. I'm now using [nice -n 18 tar..... &] thinking this would reduce the cpu usage and power. I hate hearing the cpu fan running and the computer gets a little flaky running full out for a long time. However this has not accomplished much since the cpu still runs the task full bore since not much else is going on.

Is there a way to force the tar task to only use some percentage of the cpu cycles?

1. Apple included them. That tells you either (a) they're ignorant or (b) incompetent. Which is it?2. It's a very fair comparison -- apples to apples, if you like. Users generally install a lot more than what comes on the base system. MS exploits are measured in the same manner, not strictly what comes in a base install of Windows. Apple can't spin its way out of this.3. Those Quicktime bugs are from Apple's handiwork, not Microsoft's. It's APPLE who's written sloppy code that allows all kinds of malicious content to come in via their product. And their own products are insecure for their own OS. For example:http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/backdooring-mp3-files/http://lucky13linux.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/mac-idisk-flaw/

I'm not biased. I'm not the one with money tied up in Apple hardware aside from an old early PowerPC and a few old parts. I was offered an early iMac, but I had no use for something with flowers on its case. I also won't use their software for the aforementioned reasons -- namely it's unsatisfactorily coded and, more often than not, very insecure. It's not FUD to relate the gravity of OS and software insecurity, especially when it relates to a company spending millions of dollars to convince people that their software is inherently safer than something else. When it isn't. Maybe it's another form of insecurity you need to deal with. But please do it on your own time, not mine.

--------------"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)